Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Classification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supporters tell Ohio committee that bill would clarify tax classification for garage condominiums
Summary
Proponents of House Bill 17 told the House Development Committee that 'garage' or 'car' condominiums such as Horsepower Farms are deed-restricted for personal use and are being misclassified as commercial by some auditors; witnesses urged statutory clarification so owners are taxed consistently. No vote was held.
House Bill 17 drew testimony from property owners and industry representatives who said the measure would clarify how Ohio classifies garage or "car" condominiums for tax and administrative purposes.
Joseph Wood, a property owner at Horsepower Farms in Powell, Ohio, told the House Development Committee that his units function as extensions of homes — "like a detached garage or a carriage house" — and are deed-restricted against commercial use. "Despite this, Delaware County auditor classifies our properties as commercial garages," Wood said, adding that the designation drives up property taxes, utilities and insurance. He urged members to support HB 17 to ensure consistent treatment across counties.
Chip Vance, who also testified in support, asked members to review a circulated court summary and argued the Ohio Revised Code lacks clear language for this newer real-estate product. "Garage condominiums are residential in use," Vance said, and "we do not seek special treatment — we seek consistent taxes that reflect residential use." He said deed restrictions and homeownersassociation rules that prohibit income-generating activity distinguish these properties from commercial investments.
Committee members probed whether the issue is primarily a tax-code question rather than zoning. Vice Chair Lorenz replied that the committee's focus is taxing rules and asked whether accessory structures and similar uses should be treated the same; Vance agreed the comparison is reasonable and reiterated that HB 17 is intended to remove ambiguity so auditors have legislative guidance.
No vote was taken on the bill during the hearing; the chair closed what the record identifies as the fourth hearing on HB 17 after testimony concluded.
